Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples

On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 15:56, Jonathan Borden wrote:
[...]
> "Patients with a dominantly inherited disease  have a father with a
> dominantly inherited disease, and/or a mother with a dominantly inherited
> disease"
> 
> <Class rdf:ID="DominantInheritance">
>     <unionOf>
>         <Restriction>
>                 <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/>
>                 <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
>         </Restriction>
>         <Restriction>
>                 <onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/>
>                 <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
>         </Restriction>
>     </unionOf>
> </Class>]
> 
> ...

OK; that looks like a stumper: it's a defined class,
and it's circular. I doubt Jeremy's rules
provide for the relevant conclusions. (Jos? wanna
give it a try with Euler?)

I can now see how the theoretical question relates
to real-world problems. Thanks.


At a glance, I'm pretty sure I could live with a theory
of classes that was too weak to deal with that thing, at least
for a few years. But I'll have to mull it over.


Some details...

> Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> >
> > Er... that's begging the question. No fair.
> 
> Actually, "begging the question" has a different logical meaning than you
> intend here,


Ummm... I looked it up.
  http://datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

The question was: why do we need circular stuff to exist?
You answered it by saying "suppose some circular stuff exists...".

That's not begging the question? I thought I was
getting the hang of these things.


> but that is a different matter.

OK...


> > I don't expect cyclic structures to come up in normal stuff at all.
> >
> > Please explain why you think cyclic structures will be necessary
> > to define (?) a disease.
> 
> something like one of these (simplified for example purposes):
> 
> "Patients with a paternally inherited dominant disease, have fathers with a
> paternally inherited dominant disease"
> 
> (note, for "patients with ..." read "patients who are members of the class
> of people with ...")
> 
> <Restriction rdf:ID="PaternalDominantInheritance">
>     <onProperty rdf:resource="#father">
>     <toClass rdf:resource="#PaternalDominantInheritance">
> </Restriction>

I don't think that's what you meant.

That says that PaternalDominantInheritance is *exactly*
those things whose fathers have type PaternalDominantInheritance;
that there are no other conditions (like actually
having a disease) for being in this class.

I think you meant that PaternalDominantInheritance
is a *subClass* of the (father hasClass PaternalDominantInheritance)
restriction, right?

OK, that's still circular, but it's a "primitive" class;
i.e. you're going to be able to communicate to the
machine *necessary* conditions for being in this class,
but not *sufficient* condidions, right?


> "Patients with a maternally inherited dominant disease, have mothers with a
> maternally inherited dominant disease"
> 
> <Restriction rdf:ID="MaternalDominantInheritance">
>     <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/>
>     <toClass rdf:resource="#MaternalDominantInheritance"/>
> </Restriction>
> 
> "Patients with a dominantly inherited disease  have a father with a
> dominantly inherited disease, and/or a mother with a dominantly inherited
> disease"
> 
> <Class rdf:ID="DominantInheritance">
>     <unionOf>
>         <Restriction>
>                 <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/>
>                 <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
>         </Restriction>
>         <Restriction>
>                 <onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/>
>                 <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
>         </Restriction>
>     </unionOf>
> </Class>]
> 
> ...


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:20:40 UTC